This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and
up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work
because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million
dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be different. Then these multinationals can distribute to everyone who wants to buy the movie without DRM, without regional restriction and at a competitive price. Until then everything is just
posturing, indie budgets will not change Hollywood.
Tech world has competition, but only Hollywood is making these big budget productions.
edit: not sure why this is getting down voted, it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.
On the other hand, Apple gives Steve Jobs $200million+ to make an iPad, and Microsoft certainly gives someone 200 million dollars to make Windows.next. Google gave someone $200 million to develop Android. We just don't see it as much because software doesn't depend on personalities as much.
Silicon Valley doesn't have to take on Hollywood head-on. That's almost always the wrong strategy to try to beat an incumbent.
The way you beat an incumbent leader is by changing the rules of the games so it's very hard for that company to play that new game, whether it's because they lack the competency or because the have internal conflicts of interest for doing that (think of the TV networks not really wanting to go full-web because it would eat into their much larger profits from traditional advertising).
Of course you don't just change the rules for the sake of changing the. This new game must also feel like the "future" of that market, and you need to be able to attract not only Hollywood "non-consumption", but also be able to transition Hollywood's "consumers" over time to your company (or companies - I still think that what would kill Hollywood is an entire different ecosystem for creating, distributing and watching movie, and not just a movie juggernaut like Hollywood).
1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work.
Or
2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.
I for one think it'd be really interesting if a tech conglomerate paid for a bunch of moderate-budget movies and distributed them exclusively through YouTube or other online sources, or distributed them to cinemas but did something Google-y with admissions and tickets. If Google just took 50% of opening revenues I am sure the cinemas would be thrilled to accommodate. Hollywood would seriously wig out. That is the kind of business we need to kill off the wickedness of the MPAA.
>This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar.
Your comment is somewhat ridiculous because these examples are not risks. Christopher Nolan was well known before Batman Begins in writing Memento. James Cameron wrote the script for the original Terminator and directed Aliens, T2 and the highest grossing film of all time in Titanic. Anyone would've bet on these two individuals.
You've just proposed an odd dichotomy: that big budget films can only be funded through Hollywood with DRM and other restrictions, or by technology companies without DRM and other restrictions.
You're going to need to elaborate on that, because on the face it, this sounds absurd.
At which point in the past did we establish that these wages are in _any_ way reasonable. We talk about a 'bubble' in our sector every other day. And you seem to imply (please, correct me if I missed the point) that these are 'market rates' and need to be payed by someone to get a decent end result. Which then kind of defends the existence of Hollywood as the one to make it happen.
I'd argue that this is turning the thing on its head. The Hollywood crowd overcharges from the position of a quasi monopoly that is protected by IP and copyright laws in most places of the world. They dictate the prices and are therefor able to sustain the costs of having to pay ridiculous (you can argue, but there's no way in hell I change my pov on this one) amounts of money to single persons for 'a project'.
Take away the quasi monopoly and yes, dear god: 200million+ might be a tad too much. But the market will adapt and we'll find awesome actors that are happy to do that job for 300.000 USD per year. Or less. No idea - let's find out.
Blockbusters are not the only movies that get made. Let Hollywood keep Batman. In the meantime, it's not hard to imagine a new way of making and distributing Mad Men and Portlandia.
Until Bieber came along, the most watched clip ever (Charlie bit my finger), having been seen 100 of millions of times cost a few cents of electricity to produce.
This indicates that there is an entire market out there which Hollywood is incapable of satisfying but which could easily be filled by a start up.
We did very fine, thank you, before Nolan's "Dark Knight" or Cameron's "Avatar" hit the screens, and I'm saying this as a movie freak. In fact, I'd say that the only difference between Melies' movies (which he did as an independent producer back in the day) and "Avatar" is only a technological one, not an artistic one.
Christopher Nolan doesn't deserve, or need 200 millions. The fact that Hollywood celebrities receive so much money is a symptom that something isn't right.
I think this is great, we should add a licensing clause for this, if you work for a subsidiary of an MPAA member you have to check a box to get the Hollywood edition else you are not entitled to use the software, perhaps even a Hollywood IP database for internet companies.
If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message.
Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? Is there anything better than just whois'ing every class A/B/C?
I'm thinking of a javascript that creates a black modal dialog with a youtube video queue of startup video ads. Use the chromeless video player, I'll even max the volume for them.
Simple one line addition to your site and voila your startup/site/blog is Hollywood Edition.
I love this article for its irony, intentional or no.
The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?
Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity.
So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?
"Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?"
Could you explain that? I've been jailbreaking for, maybe five years now, and it's very easy. And I think Google's new privacy policies are an improvement over the old.
Maybe that's your point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Most importantly, we should send them extortionate threats of law-suit based on easily fake-able evidence that claim they owe us thousands of dollars just to get us to not send them more letters.
And then when they stop using our service we'll say it must be because they're doing something illegal.
You, Mr. living in San Diego, are trying to get KWIK24, PBS Wikipedia LA, instead of KOSA13, PBS Wikipedia San Diego, aren't you?
Well, unfortunately we know that you can't get it over 3G or 4G because you're outside the reception area and we've encrypted KWIK24 to be received by people in LA only on Fibre or ADSL.
KOSA13 might have 30 second ads before each article, doesn't carry half of the most popular articles and re-compresses every image with a watermark, but that's not our problem.
Pure genius. You can, by the way, offer better licensing to specific companies and unaffiliated individuals -- leaving Hollywood with the unskippable ads, "premium tweets," and all the rest.
Good luck, however, winning in court to enforce your license.
As mentioned on the Wikipedia page for EULAs towards the end [1], the solution is to encase absolutely everything in DRM, making it a DMCA violation to remove the DRM without permission. Then, Google permits everybody except Hollywood to remove it freely.
Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar.
More seriously, EULA case results are mixed, and Wikipedia's somewhat sarcastic first sentence of that section as I write this is broadly correct: "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard." Maybe there's some other legal doctrine about contracts that would knock this out, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this couldn't be done. (Not that it will, of course.)
Twitter? Oh I remember them. They were popular back in the MySpace days right? Silly of them to drive away their users with the lag punishment paywalls like that. As I recall it, folks seemed to be wandering over to Facebook and G+ by then anyway.
It's mind boggling that people treat being able to consume (fettered or not) media as a god-given right. The suggestion here is that our best option is to 'be terrible' to old media until they understand what it's like to be treated poorly?
The content companies do believe they are God's gift to mankind and they have some very anti-customer policies. They think they are optimizing their revenue from such policies.
I think they underestimate the kind of growth they could see if they started treating their customers the way that most of the tech industry does.
Tech is far from perfect, but it does a better job of being customer centric.
> Since they’re so persnickety about licensing agreements,
I'm not convinced that they are. I'm sure that an audit of Hollywood software licensing would find many unlicensed copied (their word "stolen") bits of software.
Hollywood are not in the business of offering a service, only a product. This is mostly why the two aren't compatible and why they aren't interested in developing it.
The thinking is that a product is far more profitable and has higher gains than a service which bleeds money by comparison due to it's constant maintenance costs, upkeep and customer care and that drop in profit would make their pyramid business model unsustainable.
That article is dumb in its examples, lets consider something more realistic.
Every developer from this point onward adds a licensing clause for holywood execs - if that product is showcased during the movie a certain amount is owed to the developer at this point. Start putting it in every single app they will start making mistakes.
The other day I saw Open Office 2.0 in Girl with Dragon Tattoo - Libre office could easily add this clause.
That clause is incompatible with the LGPL, and Libre Office doesn't do copyright assignment, so there are many copyright holders, all of whom would have to agree to the licensing change. Not so easy.
To everyone taking this seriously, please remember, variously, "two wrongs don't make a right", the "golden rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule), "don't stoop to their level", etc.
The Twitter one sounds good then you realize an entrepreneur will come in and create a Twitter for Hollywood types. Twitter would lose millions of users to this competitor, as following celebrities draws millions.
I think Hollywood is just a facàde for the US government. A while ago, Hillary Clinton admitted the US government is losing the "information war"[1]. What could possibly be better for winning an information war, than to pass legislation like this, under the guise of "fighting piracy"? The government could not be seen as promoting this kind of legislation.. otherwise, they´d be on the same league as Iran or China..
A long time ago, the US pushed Hollywood because they knew it would essentially be free advertising for everything else the US sold. That's probably unnecessary these days. It's pretty obvious from certain comments that Hollywood is helping members keep their seats (via campaign funding), and threatening to pull the funding of anyone who rocks the boat.
It's like a Hollywood movie, about a beast (or robot) which ends up overpowering its master.
rockarage|14 years ago
edit: not sure why this is getting down voted, it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.
saulrh|14 years ago
nextparadigms|14 years ago
The way you beat an incumbent leader is by changing the rules of the games so it's very hard for that company to play that new game, whether it's because they lack the competency or because the have internal conflicts of interest for doing that (think of the TV networks not really wanting to go full-web because it would eat into their much larger profits from traditional advertising).
Of course you don't just change the rules for the sake of changing the. This new game must also feel like the "future" of that market, and you need to be able to attract not only Hollywood "non-consumption", but also be able to transition Hollywood's "consumers" over time to your company (or companies - I still think that what would kill Hollywood is an entire different ecosystem for creating, distributing and watching movie, and not just a movie juggernaut like Hollywood).
naner|14 years ago
Sure.
1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work.
Or
2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.
cookiecaper|14 years ago
technoslut|14 years ago
Your comment is somewhat ridiculous because these examples are not risks. Christopher Nolan was well known before Batman Begins in writing Memento. James Cameron wrote the script for the original Terminator and directed Aliens, T2 and the highest grossing film of all time in Titanic. Anyone would've bet on these two individuals.
panza|14 years ago
You're going to need to elaborate on that, because on the face it, this sounds absurd.
darklajid|14 years ago
I'd argue that this is turning the thing on its head. The Hollywood crowd overcharges from the position of a quasi monopoly that is protected by IP and copyright laws in most places of the world. They dictate the prices and are therefor able to sustain the costs of having to pay ridiculous (you can argue, but there's no way in hell I change my pov on this one) amounts of money to single persons for 'a project'.
Take away the quasi monopoly and yes, dear god: 200million+ might be a tad too much. But the market will adapt and we'll find awesome actors that are happy to do that job for 300.000 USD per year. Or less. No idea - let's find out.
drumdance|14 years ago
fabjan|14 years ago
Your comment seems to have nothing at all to do with the link.
alextingle|14 years ago
tomjen3|14 years ago
Until Bieber came along, the most watched clip ever (Charlie bit my finger), having been seen 100 of millions of times cost a few cents of electricity to produce.
This indicates that there is an entire market out there which Hollywood is incapable of satisfying but which could easily be filled by a start up.
paganel|14 years ago
mathattack|14 years ago
wazoox|14 years ago
fleitz|14 years ago
If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message.
Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? Is there anything better than just whois'ing every class A/B/C?
I'm thinking of a javascript that creates a black modal dialog with a youtube video queue of startup video ads. Use the chromeless video player, I'll even max the volume for them.
Simple one line addition to your site and voila your startup/site/blog is Hollywood Edition.
mishmash|14 years ago
It's been tried before. Maintaining the list is very difficult for the exact same reasons that would have made PIPA/SOPA technically inept.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian
MarkTraceur|14 years ago
The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?
Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity.
So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?
SquareWheel|14 years ago
Could you explain that? I've been jailbreaking for, maybe five years now, and it's very easy. And I think Google's new privacy policies are an improvement over the old.
Maybe that's your point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
gerggerg|14 years ago
And then when they stop using our service we'll say it must be because they're doing something illegal.
quink|14 years ago
Well, unfortunately we know that you can't get it over 3G or 4G because you're outside the reception area and we've encrypted KWIK24 to be received by people in LA only on Fibre or ADSL.
KOSA13 might have 30 second ads before each article, doesn't carry half of the most popular articles and re-compresses every image with a watermark, but that's not our problem.
sounds|14 years ago
Good luck, however, winning in court to enforce your license.
jerf|14 years ago
Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar.
More seriously, EULA case results are mixed, and Wikipedia's somewhat sarcastic first sentence of that section as I write this is broadly correct: "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard." Maybe there's some other legal doctrine about contracts that would knock this out, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this couldn't be done. (Not that it will, of course.)
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enfo...
aaronklein|14 years ago
ajuc|14 years ago
ericflo|14 years ago
marshray|14 years ago
blhack|14 years ago
Whatever that black popdown thing is called is really, really obnoxious.
Here is what it looks like in my browser: http://imgur.com/cKiYN
Chrome 16.0.9 on Snow Leopard.
The problem is that it covers text as I'm scrolling through the page.
To recreate it: start scrolling down the page.
aaronklein|14 years ago
joejohnson|14 years ago
zimbatm|14 years ago
aaronklein|14 years ago
sofuture|14 years ago
You want to know how to fix things?
Stop buying what they sell.
aaronklein|14 years ago
The content companies do believe they are God's gift to mankind and they have some very anti-customer policies. They think they are optimizing their revenue from such policies.
I think they underestimate the kind of growth they could see if they started treating their customers the way that most of the tech industry does.
Tech is far from perfect, but it does a better job of being customer centric.
DanBC|14 years ago
I'm not convinced that they are. I'm sure that an audit of Hollywood software licensing would find many unlicensed copied (their word "stolen") bits of software.
dirtbox|14 years ago
The thinking is that a product is far more profitable and has higher gains than a service which bleeds money by comparison due to it's constant maintenance costs, upkeep and customer care and that drop in profit would make their pyramid business model unsustainable.
nyar|14 years ago
Every developer from this point onward adds a licensing clause for holywood execs - if that product is showcased during the movie a certain amount is owed to the developer at this point. Start putting it in every single app they will start making mistakes.
The other day I saw Open Office 2.0 in Girl with Dragon Tattoo - Libre office could easily add this clause.
eurleif|14 years ago
That clause is incompatible with the LGPL, and Libre Office doesn't do copyright assignment, so there are many copyright holders, all of whom would have to agree to the licensing change. Not so easy.
yycom|14 years ago
To everyone taking this seriously, please remember, variously, "two wrongs don't make a right", the "golden rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule), "don't stoop to their level", etc.
d5tryr|14 years ago
paul9290|14 years ago
mrebus|14 years ago
hunterp|14 years ago
unknown|14 years ago
[deleted]
mrleinad|14 years ago
Hollywood´s not the problem. Your government is.
[1] Hilary Clinton Admits US Is Losing The "Information War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoeDaLV2WA
wisty|14 years ago
It's like a Hollywood movie, about a beast (or robot) which ends up overpowering its master.
tkahn6|14 years ago